A High Court barrister says the military should have discretion in punishing their own over minor matters, instead of having a process that could put the matter before an independent judge.
Rob Munro, who is also an ex-Army officer and former MP, appeared before the Foreign Affairs, Defence
and Trade select committee yesterday in overall support of new legislation for the armed forces.
The Armed Forces Law Reform Bill aims to provide a common system of summary discipline across the Navy, Army and Air Force, and a permanent court martial for serious cases.
It also aims to align the law with the Bill of Rights and has a provision to allow any punishment thought to be too severe to be challenged in the Summary Appeal Court.
But Mr Munro said this provision was inappropriate for trivial offences, such as being five minutes' late or having dirty boots. It could also lead to appeals becoming routine.
"This bill would mean that a retired District Court judge may be able to look, well after the event, and say, 'Well, no, I think that's too tough' and quash the punishment that's awarded by ... a 20-year veteran who knows the men, knows the arrangements, [but] in purely legal terms has conflicts of interest," Mr Munro said.
"There's a possibility that [the judge] sees the papers two months later and knowing nothing of the people, decides the [punishment] was too tough.
"When you weigh up the pros and cons, [the 20-year veteran] should make that decision and shouldn't have to unduly fear from someone sitting with a very sharp pen in the Summary Appeal Court."
Mr Munro said in the past, punishment over trivial offences was not challenged, and "now they will be and I wonder about the practical effects of that".
"The process of who decides is vital."
He suggested keeping appeal rights for minor matters within the military chain, but having a review process as a safety net.
The committee is due to report back on the bill in September.
